All things related to multicast

[Tom Pusateri <>]

The problem you mention Tony was PR 9672 fixed 8/2/00 in releases
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

After fixing the NULL register bug, I heard there was a cisco bug
id related to this problem as well. I had assumed (possibly
incorrectly) that there were no more problems on my end. I'll be
glad to work with Shep and see if we can nail this once and for
all if you guys are still seeing it.

A new tcpdump hex dump of the tcp encapsulated data would be useful
if anyone can capture one easily.

Thanks,
Tom

In message 
<>
 you write:
>Once again:
>(and yes, i do wish juniper would fix this.  Hint, hint.)
>
>##################################################
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:51:07 -0700
>From: Tom Pusateri 
><>
>Sender: 
>
>X-md5sum: 076f6c6d61b3d49ce03c957c5da400e0
>X-md5sum-Origin: ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu
>Lines: 392
>
>Actually, this should not be causing you any grief. Juniper routers are
>sending SA's when PIM NULL registers are received with the pseudo IP header.
>IOS complains about it (rightly so) and tosses the SA but that is the 
>extent of
>the problem. A fix from Juniper will be forthcoming but in the meantime,
>it might be good to look closer and see if this is really causing any 
>trouble.
>Our indication is that it is not. Please feel free to contact me with
>questions.
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
>
>##################################################
>At 11:20 PM 2/5/2001 +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>> > > Bad SA from RP 141.142.12.1 for (141.142.214.8, 233.2.171.1)
>> > >
>> > > The most recent full warning is
>> > >
>> > > *Feb  4 10:18:41: %PIM-6-SA_ENCAP_INVALID: Bad SA from RP 141.142.12.1
>> > > for (141.142.214.8, 233.2.171.1); additional info = 14 0 0 14 7000D58
>> > > 7000D58 FFFF 0
>> >
>> > This is a known issue; check the wg-multicast archives for last
>> > November for a discussion.  At that time the problem was reported
>> > to be related to the way Junipers send SA messages, and that
>> > router at NCSA happens to be a Juniper.
>> >
>> > The Cisco bug ID is said to be CSCdr49641, fixed in lots of recent
>> > releases. What are you running?
>>
>>I'm also seeing similar log messages, and I'm running 12.0(14.6)S1
>>on this particular box, so it should have the fix for the above
>>mentioned bug-ID.
>>
>>Here's a few of my recent messages:
>>
>>006606: Feb  5 21:29:56: %PIM-6-SA_ENCAP_INVALID: Bad SA from RP 
>>141.142.12.1 for (69.0.0.32, 218.77.0.0); additional info = 2020 E73FB61E 
>>8D8EDC47 2020 629DABCC 629DABCC FFFF 0
>>006607: Feb  5 21:36:47: %PIM-6-SA_ENCAP_INVALID: Bad SA from RP 
>>141.142.12.1 for (69.0.0.32, 126.82.0.0); additional info = 2020 E73FB61E 
>>8D8EDC47 2020 629DF580 629DF580 FFFF 0
>>006608: Feb  5 21:37:48: %PIM-6-SA_ENCAP_INVALID: Bad SA from RP 
>>141.142.12.1 for (69.0.0.87, 229.192.0.0); additional info = 2020 E904C801 
>>8D8E1995 2020 629DABCC 629DABCC FFFF 0
>>006609: Feb  5 21:48:28: %PIM-6-SA_ENCAP_INVALID: Bad SA from RP 
>>141.142.12.1 for (141.142.214.8, 233.2.171.1); additional info = 14 0 0 14 
>>6278196C 6278196C FFFF 0
>>
>>It would seem that the first two are SAs for non-multicast groups(!).
>>
>>The last one seems to be the multicast beacon group; perhaps no
>>wonder we're having trouble receiving sources there...
>>
>>Is there anyone else here with a bit more clue about what is
>>actually causing these events?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>- Havard
>